Torrington charter revision proposals on today's ballot

TORRINGTON >> Voters will have a cavalcade of charter revisions on their ballots Tuesday, ranging from reshaping the chain of command to increasing the cap on expenditures during disasters.

Five proposed revisions survived the review process and will be posed as ballot questions on Nov. 6, putting the final fate of the updates before the electorate. The revisions passed the Torrington City Council on July 2, following suggestions from the Charter Revision Commission, and most of the revisions were not met with much public outcry during the City Council's July 2 meeting.

The first question deals with the unique structure of the Torrington police and fire departments. Disciplinary action is handled by the Board of Public Safety, not the department chiefs. This structure is not in place in other city departments, and the proposed revision would change the chain of command so that department chiefs have the authority to discipline members.

"Currently, there is a disconnection between the Chiefs and their officers in that the authority to impose major discipline does not lay with the Chiefs," states an explanatory document on the town's website. "This creates an anomaly within a chain of command where the Chief has been organizationally removed from the final decision making process."

Advertisement

Charter Revision Commission chairman Victor Muschell was the only person to speak about any of the proposed changes in the July meeting, supporting the proposal to return the power to department chiefs.

"This has been festering for years and I think it's time we take care of this problem," Muschell said at the July 2 City Council meeting.

Two other questions would raise the cap on spending, lifting the limit on extraordinary expenses from $100,000 to $235,000. This proposal -- which failed in 2008 -- will adjust the cap, which was set in 1982, for inflation, making more money available in emergencies.

The third question also deals with fiscal matters, allowing the city to spend up to $500,000 for emergency purposes without a referendum. The expenditures would still need to be approved at a public meeting, but lifting the referendum requirement would, according to the City Council, remove barriers to assistance.

"The cost of referendum and time required to prepare, notice and conduct a referendum, restricts the City's ability to respond and may prohibit response altogether," the explanatory document states.

Voters will also be asked to allow Board of Education vacancies to be treated similarly to other vacancies on town commissions, enabling replacement members to serve the rest of a member's term, rather than the rest of the term until the next municipal elections. The latter model is in place in towns such as Winsted, where in 2011 three of the open seats on their Board of Education came from midterm resignations, not expired terms.

The final question will allow the town to make technical revisions to the charter itself without asking voters. These changes would largely concern internal conflicts, as well as illegal measures. Two examples mentioned in the explanatory document are the requirement to appoint Board of Finance members only after a mayoral election -- Board of Finance terms are two years long, while mayoral elections will now be held every four years -- as well as a ban on state or federal employment by City Council members. The document states that such a ban is illegal, violating Connecticut and federal law. The heading of "technical revisions" also inclues copy editing, such as renumbering the sections after amendments are made.

"Removal of this and other similar provisions from the Charter," the document states, "are technical changes in that there will be no impact as a result of its deletion."